Claim of Kingston v. Rochester Products, G. M. C.

62 A.D.2d 1104, 404 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11199
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 1104 (Claim of Kingston v. Rochester Products, G. M. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claim of Kingston v. Rochester Products, G. M. C., 62 A.D.2d 1104, 404 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed October 22, 1976. Claimant underwent a tubal ligation sterilization procedure on April 4, 1975. She, thereafter, filed a claim for disability benefits for related lost time. The board in affirming the referee by a split vote, found that the tubal ligation was purely elective and that the disability resulting from the operation was not illness within the limits of subdivision 8 of section 201 of the Disability Benefits Law (Workmen’s Compensation Law, art 9). The question of the compensability of a tubal ligation was considered by this court in two relatively recent cases (Matter of Fullerton v General Motors Corp., Rochester Prods. Div., 46 AD2d 251; Matter of White v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 46 AD2d 964). An examination of the instant record demonstrates that conflicting inferences may be drawn from the proof. The board, however, found against claimant. Under such circumstances we should not disturb the determination if there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain it (Matter of Manikoff v Your Baking Co., 30 AD2d 740). We concude there is. Consequently, the decision must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Claim of Film v. Holmes Transportation
147 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Claim of Furner v. Precision
114 A.D.2d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.2d 1104, 404 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kingston-v-rochester-products-g-m-c-nyappdiv-1978.